Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Wis. 423

Pierce v. Schutt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1866

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1866-01-15

Action to bar the defendant of all title to and interest in certain land under a tax deed, and compel Mm to release bis claim thereto, and to have the tax deed declared void, &o. It is alleged in the complaint, among other things, “ that the tax on which said land was sold, was, including fees, interest and all lawful charges up to the hour of sale, the sum of $22.91; that the said county treasurer, voithout authority of law, demanded an additional sum of one dollar and…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1942

3 state decisions

10186618701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cole, J.

¶1In the cases of Kimball v. Ballard and Warner v. Supervisors of Outagamie County [19 Wis., 601, 611], we held that where a county treasurer added an excess of five per cent, to the taxes, interest and costs justly chargeable to the land, and sold the property for the entire amount, the sale was void on account of such excess. This ruling disposes of this appeal, *425for it appears from tbe complaint that the treasurer unlawfully added the sum of $1.20, being five per cent, excess, to the original tax, interest and charges, as in the above cases. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint upon paying the amount of legal taxes and charges against the land, with seven per cent, interest. Mills v. Johnson, 17 Wis., 598; Kimball v. Ballard, supra.

¶2It is objected that before the plaintiff could maintain his action he must pay or offer to pay the amount justly due. A failure, however, to mate such a tender could only go to the question of costs. The matter of costs in these cases rests very much in the discretion of the court; and it could, as one condition to the relief granted, require the plaintiff to pay such costs as might seem equitable under all the circumstances.

¶3By the Court. — The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed.

/20/wis/423 · .json · Public domain